I homeschooled for 2 years, and I can attest that no parent needs to be "qualified" as a teacher to homeschool. There are tons of excellent online courses and by mail curriculums. All a parent needs to do is provide the discipline and oversight to make sure the child is working in his online courses or workbooks.

Because we weren't restricted by the daily school schedule, my son was able to complete his classwork in about 3 hrs, which left the afternoon free to explore his other interests, go to the park, museums, etc.

His online school graded his work and tracked his progress. I didn't need to. Every year, I had him take the standardized tests for his grade level. This was one of the requirements in my state, but I would've done it anyway.

I feel badly for this mom having so many kids, but it sounds like she was mostly just lazy, and now she's making homeschooling look bad, when this isn't a homeschooling problem. It's a lax parenting problem.

This has nothing to do with being conservative, or homeschooling, or even Quiverfull. It's one really crappy lazy person blaming their actions on others. After all it wans't her, the state "allowed" her to do the crappy nonteaching. It's all the state's fault. I would (almost) never homeschool) I don't have the patience to teach. But I know moms who do it and do it well.

There are two types of home schooling. Those that actually teach their children and the ones that don't. The end result is those that can pass a GED and those that can't. When I was in High School, it was obvious that the home schooled children had learned better when their ACT scores came back perfect.

We don't need any more regulations. We don't need to let a few bad apples ruin this for children who actually excel at home.

m4,

I agree with you on the idea of this case being "one really crappy lazy person blaming their actions on others."

But other cases of also depends on the education level, political/religious cant and the dedication of the parents.

That also happens with public school system. I know a parent that had to pull her children out of Catholic school (tuition too high) and now sends her children to public school. Her and he husband assign work over and above the requirements of the school. They also have their children do school work over the the summer.

And then their is another option -- use a system like K12.com or something similar.

It's clear to me that Rawls' purpose in writing that article was to perpetrate a stereotype: "Christian rednecks! Home schoolers! OMG! OMG! Run in circles!" Last summer I tutored a 15-year-old teenage boy who is being home schooled. While most of his peers in public school are in Algebra 1 and are still struggling with "If x + 3 = 5, what is x?", he was able to successfully calculate the wing coefficient of lift of a Boeing 747 when I gave it to him as a homework assignment. He's read the classics, speaks Spanish fairly fluently, and he volunteers with the Civil Air Patrol. And yes, he's been taught about evolution, along with Marxism and Catholic liberation theology. (His mom admits that she does not hold with evolution, but she wants the boy to make up his own mind. She has taught him about a lot of things she does not agree with. Her criteria in teaching these things is that, whatever position the boy takes, he has to be able to present a rational argument.) He took the PSAT last fall and his scores landed in the 5th percentile.

I do agree that home schooled children should be subject to some minimum standard, along with public school and other children. Of course, the only way to enforce that is standardized testing, which all of the teachers' unions oppose.

Feh. Just discovered a coupla kids in the public school this week in fifth grade who couldn't read.

Homeschooling? Yes, it can be a great thing for the right people, but even with bright parents and children who excell, it is a tough thing to do. Parents must be well organized, disciplined, and balanced.

If I child in public schools gets a teacher that neglects a disfavored subject or area of development, it's not so big of a deal, especially if a parent notices and picks up the slack. If a parent does the same thing - disaster. My sister planned to homeschool her brilliant daughter for Christian values. I was horrified. This was the child who had trouble holding up her head at nine months and screamed in terror when we took her to the park at four years old because she had never walked on grass before. My sister took care of her educational needs brilliantly, but held her and coddled her physically. She didn't have much free play time and wasn't allowed to get dirty.

My younger son begged me to home-school him. He zipped ahead of his peers academically, but struggled socially. How could I properly meet his needs for socialization while meeting his academic needs?

My older son is a sophomore in a university who is taking senior level classes and is also participating in athletics. He is deciding between playing professional sports or going to law school. I don't believe I could have prepared him for both of these divergent career paths through home schooling.

Home school, public school, it always come down to the parents. I have been heavily involved with a couple of youth programs. Generally, you can tell which kids have involved parents and which don't.

Many parents essentially treated us as an unpaid baby sitter. Barely slowing down the car to drop off the kid, who was usually ill prepared for the upcoming activity. Then after the activity was over you would have to wait around a half hour for the parent to deign to pick up their child.

I remember one time waiting after a particularly long time for a missing parent to pick up a child. I asked the kid how he was susposed to get home. He hadn't a clue. How can a parent drop off their child and not tell the child what the plans were for getting him home?

Are there crappy teachers among the homeschooling set?

No doubt.

And the similarly-skilled who are called public school teachers get annual raises, tasty pension plans, and all the other benefits with being a public employee.

And all the oversight, regulations, merit-pay systems, and yadda yadda haven't done much to help.

Home school, public school, it always come down to the parents.

This.

Penelope Trunk has an interesting homeschooling blog. She tends to get some thoughtful comments there, too.

"There are two types of home schooling. Those that actually teach their children and the ones that don't. The end result is those that can pass a GED and those that can't. When I was in High School, it was obvious that the home schooled children had learned better when their ACT scores came back perfect.

We don't need any more regulations. We don't need to let a few bad apples ruin this for children who actually excel at home."

While I totally agree about there basically being two types of homeschooling, I severely disagree that we don't need any more regulations. There are requirements of children enrolled in public school to attend and for the parents to provide sufficient documentation of vaccination, and that is no different from the desperately needed requirements of homeschooling families to be implemented to include but not be limited to:
1.) Provide regular testing results to show that comprehensive education is taking place and meeting cirriculum requirements
2.) Show documentation that the students are being socialized in group or community settings to aid in their social development and properly prepare them to function in the workplace and society at large
and
3.) Have routine (quarterly at minimum) meetings with school board personnel WITH children PRESENT to ensure that the psychological and physical well-being of the students is being monitored.

Letting "a few bad apples" have a free pass to neglect their children and, in some cases, terrorize and abuse them because most home-schooling parents are loving and responsible is like abolishing murder and assault laws because "most" people are sensible enough not to plant a machete in someone's face.

Some regulations on home-schooling wouldn't have prevented this boy from being abused, nor would it have forced DCS to do their job, but his cage time would have been limited and there would at least have been some more exposure to state personnel of his injuries and failure to thrive.

"It would be two years before his body was found.

One of the reasons his absence wasn't noticed was that his stepmother, Kimberly Kubina, took him out of school, saying that he was being home-schooled."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/26/christian-choate-boy-who-_n_884731.html

This young woman might also have had a better chance of having a broader spectrum of witnesses to her malnourishment, at the least.
Wisconsin teenager found walking streets barefoot in pyjamas last week 'Beaten, starved and even forced to eat own faeces and drink own urine' Tells police she found what she could on floor and in rubbish to consume Two neighbours say they called child protection after seeing girl outside Claimed seeing 15-year-old scavenge through bins and berated by parents Driver who found girl calmed her down by showing pictures of his children

"A police spokesman said on Wednesday that the teen, who weighed 70lbs when she was found, was getting medical treatment and is being held in protective custody.
The malnourished girl told authorities she had been forced to stay in the unfinished basement of her father and stepmother's home since 2006 and that an alarm would sound if she went upstairs."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2102174/Child-protection-received-8-abuse-reports-starving-Wisconsin-teen-15-walking-barefoot.html#ixzz1pUVqnXLh

I had extensive exposure to home schooled children as some family members and close friends have opted to home school - for a variety of reasons.

These are all educated, disciplined parents who love thier kids and devote hours to teaching them at home.

All these children are at grade level or ahead academically. All the children are also socially awkward, immature, timid, and totally risk adverse.

Before the home school advocates start yelling that THEIR kid is just perfect and well adjusted, let me say again that between family and friends I know approximately 20 kids who have been/are home schooled. And without exception, each of these kids were/are not well adjusted socially.

Home schooling to me is taking helicopter parenting and dialing it up to even more. Having Mommy around you constantly for 18 hours a day when you're 12?

They score in the top 10% academically. Fine. But trade that for a 12 year old who can't spend the night at a Girl Scout sleepover because she's too afraid to be away from home? No thanks.

School is about more than academics.

This woman sounds like she had too many pregnancy (medical) complications to pay proper attention to her kids.

I have heard that there are two different types of home-schoolers: Ones who want a better education that public schools, and even private schools, can provide and ones who want free babies sitters (older siblings).

I'm, glad she saw the error of her ways and corrected it. Peer pressure and brain washing can go along way. I'm happy she pulled out of it.

"demand is remarkably balanced with supply."

Sure it's about indoctrination, bullying, sex drugs, not just the illegal kind but pushing Rittalin.

to ValiantBlue those regulations are so laughable. Most schools would never be able to pass them.
"2.) Show documentation that the students are being socialized" LOL sure Jr has a criminal history thats the socialization you want.

"How could I properly meet his needs for socialization while meeting his academic needs?"

Socialization is always the red herring that's trotted out in the homeschooling discussion. Many school districts allow homeschoolers to participate in extra-curriculurs. There's scouts, sports leagues, art classes, youth groups, neighbors, etc.

"I know approximately 20 kids who have been/are home schooled. And without exception, each of these kids were/are not well adjusted socially."

You would have pegged me as one of those kids. When I went from homeschooling to public school I did not know how cliques worked. I wasn't even aware of "mean girls." Vicious rumors caught me completely off guard. As a result, I quickly became timid, and easy prey for bullies. But once the schoolkid bullshit ends so does a lot of the "not well adjusted socially."

"But trade that for a 12 year old who can't spend the night at a Girl Scout sleepover because she's too afraid to be away from home?"

My next door neighbor was like that too. Terrified of leaving her driveway because her mother had her convinced that bad men were everywhere. And that girls had no need of a college education since they were just supposed to get married and raise a family. Tragic really, and the fact the girl went to public school did nothing to mitigate it.

It comes down to whether or not you have good parents or shitty parents. Shitty parents make shitty educators. Even good parents may not have the skill set to be good educators, but they are still involved in their kid's education and that is incalcuably valuable. (And not every kid is a good match for homeschooling either.) The mom in this article is an *incredibly* shitty educator. Kudos for being a good enough parent to pull out of the spiral in time to help 80% of her kids.

"These families may well constitute a majority of homeschoolers."

I find the use of the qualifier "may" in the author's conclusion *very* revealing.

(Obviously I'm biased as well. I'm one of the unqualified success stories of homeschooling, if I do say so myself ;) )

I agree, UW Girl.

"Socialization is always the red herring that's trotted out in the homeschooling discussion. Many school districts allow homeschoolers to participate in extra-curriculurs. There's scouts, sports leagues, art classes, youth groups, neighbors, etc."
Allowance is great Elle, but if the parents are dead-set against letting the kids out of their sight or, indeed, out of the house (or basement) at all, that's not much help to the kids to simply be eligible.
I was kept away in private until sixteen to the point that when I was in public at that time, I actually panicked for lack of knowing what to say or do when someone greeted me.
"My next door neighbor was like that too. Terrified of leaving her driveway because her mother had her convinced that bad men were everywhere. And that girls had no need of a college education since they were just supposed to get married and raise a family. Tragic really, and the fact the girl went to public school did nothing to mitigate it."
I agree totally that group-setting schooling is of course not a cure-all against indoctrination, paranoid thinking, and emotional or physical terrorism in the home. My stance is simply that it provides children with a broader opportunity to encounter alternate viewpoints or even to seek assistance or friendship, provided they haven't been totally paralyzed by their home lives, should they be in an abusive situation. This is also true of requiring, for example, a homeschooling parent to SHOW that their child is attending Boy Scouts or participating in local athletic programs or study groups, to name a few possible group activities.
"It comes down to whether or not you have good parents or shitty parents. Shitty parents make shitty educators. Even good parents may not have the skill set to be good educators, but they are still involved in their kid's education and that is incalcuably valuable."
I agree - and I congratulate you for your success in having been homeschooled! I have absolutely nothing against homeschooling in ITSELF. I simply know that the system fails our kids badly enough in assisting children of shitty parents to just let those kids disappear because those parents got a behavioral wildcard by pulling them from school (or never enrolling them)and hiding them away.

Public schools sure have succeeded wonderfully in perpetuating their monopoly. Many here talk about how some kids are scared to leave their home yet many of you seem scared to not have government teaching your kids and you.

The DC School system is the obvious model. They get the most money, so they get the best staff and produce the best results. They are so good the president's children all attend one. Sorry, I was in the wrong reality.

One can find an example to disprove almost anything. It wasn't hard.

They are your children and it is your choice. Half of us were below average in school. With some of us, it was motivation. With some, a lack of intellect. Many of you will be able to teach your children, at least as well as some public school teachers, most of whom come from the lowest quartile of college graduates. Some of us don't have the time or the motivation to do it. Those who do could probably find resources like Khan Academy that would let you provide a superior education to your children.

Some of us even remember that the purpose of a public education is to provide a compliant citizenry.

They are your children and it's your choice.

MarkD, I agree wholeheartedly. My son's 5th grade teacher sent home notes full or mispellings! That (and the fact he was being bullied) was one of the reasons I chose to homeschool.

Whether a child is in public school or not, parents end up being the primary educators anyway. In most school systems, you can't rely on the education being sufficiently taught during class - it gets sent home as homework anyway. So, parents are homeschooling whether they like it or not.

I figured if I was going to do the bulk of the teaching, I'd rather have more control over the subject matter and allow my son to move ahead rather than waiting for the rest of the class to catch up (and his teacher to learn grammar).

Parents of highly gifted students pretty much HAVE to homeschool unless they're blessed to live in the few parts of the country with amazing school systems.

And, often, these are the kids who are socially awkward anyway. It's not that the homeschooling *made* them socially awkward. How many socially awkward kids do you recall from public school? How many geeky kids got picked on during during recess?

Maybe you didn't notice, but these kids were not being "properly socialized".

"ACT scores came back perfect"

Turns out, someone actually studied that. Home schooled students did better than the national average on English and Reading but slightly worse on Math (though it seems to me within the margin of error--20.4 vs 20.7; same with SAT, which found the opposite with math.)

I suspect, however, that if you were to examine only students whose parents took an interest in their children's education and made their expectations high, you'd find that home schooled students would do worse.

(I'd also be interested to see long term studies between those home schooled up to the eighth grade, those in private school, those with tutors and those in public education. My guess; those with topic-specific tutors would do best, but by 21, there would be no statistical difference between any of the groups.

Incidentally, there is pretty good evidence that formal schooling before age 7 is a waste of time--all advantages disappear within 2 years [which makes sense from a brain development and language acquisition standpoint.] The best thing you can do up to age nine is read, a lot.)

@UW Girl, that's been my experience, too. I went to a really "nerdy" college that seemed to attract a lot of kids who were homeschooled through high school.

While they performed extremely well academically, their ability to interact with their peers, communicate with strangers (including professors) and do group projects was abysmal.

There was one exception -- a girl who had been homeschooled for elementary, middle and high school who was a social butterfly. Apparently, her mom had calculated the amount of "peer-to-peer" interaction she would have gotten in school and required her to get that much every day. So, she did her school work during the day and was then required, for at least two hours a day, to play with a neighbor, take part in a sports team or dance class, or go to her church's youth group.

So, I'll echo what most people here are saying. Whether the kid goes to public school, private school or is homeschooled, it boils down to the parents making sure they get what they're lacking from whatever mode of education they choose!

Joe: "Incidentally, there is pretty good evidence that formal schooling before age 7 is a waste of time--all advantages disappear within 2 years [which makes sense from a brain development and language acquisition standpoint.] The best thing you can do up to age nine is read, a lot.)"

Actually, I've read that in my professional literature as well (children's librarian). In fact, kids in Finland don't start school until 7 and they have one of the highest literacy rates, if I remember right. Makes sense. I've heard repeatedly that kids who are pushed to read before age 4 ultimately do worse. Their brains just aren't ready for it.

ValiantBlue: "This is also true of requiring, for example, a homeschooling parent to SHOW that their child is attending Boy Scouts or participating in local athletic programs or study groups, to name a few possible group activities."

Geez, you would've been torturing me. I hated (and to some extent, still hate) all group activities. I was shy, geeky, awkward, and completely uninterested in the things that were life and death to my classmates growing up. To require me to participate in a group activity would've been miserable. (FYI: public school all through growing up). College cured most of it, but I still detest going to work trainings and being told to divide up into small groups or being forced to do "ice breakers".

Also, what about kids like my brother? The whole reason my mom pulled him out of school was because he was bullied. Granted, he was the kind of kid who was asking for it (pathological liar), but it still doesn't seem right to force them to participate where they don't want to/need to. She homeschooled him for two years, until he was ready to go into high school.

I believe the rule at the time was they had to pass a midterm and a final exam given by a certified teacher.

Amy, I just wanted to say thank you for blogging on this. Just... thank you.

I grew to survive an abusive fundamentalist and isolationist Christian milieu that was, for lack of a better term, exacerbated by a homeschooling program that was largely unmonitored (as is widespread from what I've read). My mother met with a school board rep once a year to review my work and evaluate my progress, but was otherwise undisturbed in her madness. I very much beleive in personal responsibility to move out of the past and make the best of the present - that is, graduating from the status of victim to survivor, rather than engaging in self-pity or excuse-making. That being said, my opportunities were somewhat limited by the ability of my mother to completely deny me access to normal social situations while engaging in psychological terrorism.

I know that many homeschooling families are loving and comprehensive in raising their children, so I'm not anti-homeschooling by any means - if a family has the resources and mental stability to do it properly, I actually think it's quite a preferable situation. However, although I'm very anti-legislation, I truly think that homeschooling needs stronger (or, indeed, any, in some areas) monitoring procedures to keep fewer kids from slipping through the cracks. I realize that kids fall headlong through some cracks in group school settings, and still would in homeschooling if greater parental accountability were implemented, but I feel that whatever visibility kids can get when they're in a toxic family atmosphere is a good thing.

This issue is naturally very close to me, so I appreciate it when people draw attention to the problems with the predominant (and in my opinion, unacceptable) lack of accountability in homeschooling. I hate to see when caring homeschoolers are badgered by unwarranted CPS reports from neighbors who fancy themselves truancy officers. However, I also love to see evidence compiled to rebut the (predominantly fundamentalist Christian) homeschoolers who crow, "You can't tell me how to raise or educate my child! He's my property and I'll do what I want with him and you just want to invade my privacy and persecute meee!" I honestly don't think that more accountability on the part of homeschooling parents would truly be any more invasive or inconvenient to them than the minimum vaccination, attendance, and documentation requirements are to parents of publicly or privately group-schooled children.

I know you didn't really need to know my backround and opinion, but like I said, the issue is very close to me and if you are so inclined I'd be fascinated to read and know further your thoughts on this sometime. Otherwise, carry on your prolific hard work and keep shaming jerks! People like me are encouraged by your valor and society needs it!

As the first posters pointed out, this is not necessarily about Quiverfull's faults. However, I think it's more than a bit unfair to accuse Vyckie Garrison of being "lazy." She may have been born into a Quiverfull family and therefore would not be well equipped to say "no" to having more children than she or her health could handle.

It reminds me of what politicians really want or don't want for their voters. Heaven forbid that the latter should ALL be well fed, well educated, in control of their fertility, AND politically active, since they may well decide to stop voting for those politicians!

I think one thing to remember is that no teacher can keep up with all the information in every subject, since it increases every day. Take history, for example. Therefore, teaching kids to love challenging reading as a leisure activity is something every parent needs to do - and too many parents don't like to read, themselves, and think of this as an unfair burden - as if the teacher can always be expected to counteract the influence of a book-hating parent!

And, I have to say, it sounds as though homeschooling families are just as likely to have the same disdain for books and the same addiction to screen time (think Veggie Tales) and lack of exercise that other families do. Which brings me to this:

I didn’t have kids for the same reason I didn’t become a surgeon or a ditch-digger – I just didn’t want to. However, I can think of a few other compelling reasons to think twice:

1. I wouldn’t want to be the only parent in the neighborhood who actually pushes kids to be independent and to take responsibility for their own behavior.

2. I wouldn’t want to be the only parent who understands that when you say “no” to a five year old and he cries for an hour, it does NOT mean that you did anything horribly wrong or harmful – it only means that he needs to hear “no” more often.

3. I would not want my kids to grow up surrounded by classmates who are otherwise smart and friendly but who still put down reading and readers. I can only imagine how much less of a reader I would have been if I’d known ANY popular kids like that in the 1970s or 1980s. Anyone who talked like that would have been recognized as stupid. Nowadays, what’s considered stupid and nerdy, by kids, is almost anything that kids CHOOSE to do (outside of family time) that doesn’t overlap with video games or Facebook. Or sports. If it isn’t fast-paced or screen-related, what’s the point?

It reminds me of what politicians really want or don't want for their voters. Heaven forbid that the latter should ALL be well fed, well educated, in control of their fertility, AND politically active, since they may well decide to stop voting for those politicians!
___________________

Forgot to say: Did we all hear what Santorum said about the unemployment rate?

Comedians will be so sorry to see him go.....

This just might destroy whatever chances he has left. Kind of a pity, since, as Joe Nocera said in an op-ed at the New York Times, if Santorum were to become the nominee and then lose to Obama, it would, in a sense, save the Republican Party.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/03/opinion/nocera-rooting-for-santorum.html

Excerpts:

"But that is also where I see a glimmer of hope. During the McGovern-Mondale era, the Democrats were exactly where the Republicans are now: the party had been taken over by its most extreme liberal faction, and it had lost touch with the core concerns of the middle class, just as the Republicans have now. When I spoke to Whitman this week about what the Republican Party needed to do to become a more inclusive, less rigidly dogmatic party, she said, 'It’s going to take some kind of shock therapy.' Those terrible losses in 1972 and, especially, in 1984 were the Democrats’ shock therapy. Just eight years after Mondale’s loss, Bill Clinton was elected president.

"What happened in the interim? In effect, moderate Democrats wrested the party back from its most liberal wing. Moderates like Richard Gephardt and Charles Robb began meeting weekly to rethink what the party stood for. One of the people involved in those discussions was Al From, who would later go on to create the Democratic Leadership Council, which became the platform for new Democratic ideas — and, for that matter, for Clinton’s presidential run."